OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
263020 | Thomas Conroy | 2017‑08‑19 | Re: Robert Duke chisel |
Jim Thompson wrote (message 249312, 2014‑07‑18): "Since there is so little info available about Robert Duke chisels, I thought Ishould post a couple of pictures. The mark is very clear. https://picasaweb.google.com/102358420595488787966/MysteryTo ol?authuser=0&feat=directlink I (Conroy here again) just bought a chisel on eBay with a partly illegible mark. The photo for the listing is excellent, clearer than the chisel itself was when I first saw it: http://www.ebay.com/itm/192259021014 ( third photo). From the chisel itself I could make out "Robert," "Cast," and the triangle; and after thrashing around a bit with "Robert O??", "Robert Dow?", "Robertson", and so on, I ran it down in the Archive with Jim's crystal-clear photo and comment. The pleasure of being able to start a message as I did is incredible, but it doesn't really surprise me. He's still there looking after us. Since I'm now an owner with some stake, I'll weigh in on a discussion that developed later in the thread. It was suggested that this Robert Duke might be a Robert Duke & Co. that ceased operations in Sydney around 1855. I'd say: no way. Look at the typography of the words, thin monoline letters completely lacking any kind of serif. This isn't a nineteenth century mark, or maybe just barely before the turn of the century. And the aura of the my chisel, all the little hints of color and shape, seems American to me. I could be wrong on "American," but there's no way the typography could be pre-1855. There must have been two Robert Duke companies, unrelated and probably in different companies. I chasing Robert Duke I came across a person we ought to know about: William Metcalf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Metcalf_(steel) According to Wikipedia, After "1868 he was engaged continuously in steel manufacturing, and in 1897 he organized the Braeburn Steel Company, of which he was the head until his death[in 1909]. He is credited with having made the first crucible steel in America." This was apparently, according to the "Crucible Steel" entry, a simpler method than the English Huntsman process, involving direct melting together of iron and carbon. In any case, the manufacture of cast steel in America would have brought its price down sharply, and would mark the point when laminated blades gave way to all-cast-steel blades. Useful dating indication for a whole range of tools. Maybe others on the list know about Metcalf, but I didn't. Tom ConroyBerkeley |
|||
263024 | Brent Beach <brent.beach@g...> | 2017‑08‑19 | Re: Robert Duke chisel |
Hi On 2017-08-19 01:21, Thomas Conroy via OldTools wrote: > In any case, the manufacture of cast steel in America would have brought its price down sharply, and would mark the point when laminated blades gave way to all-cast-steel blades. Interesting info on dating of Crucible Steel. Stanley was still using laminated blades in 1935. I have one laminated blade made when they were stamping batch numbers on blades that dates from 1941. The change then could be associated with the diversion of steel into armament production. So, while cost was a factor, it is possible that the advertising value of laminated blades meant they were being produced decades after the ready availability of good quality steel. One other factor on laminated blades is the grinding effort - which Stanley advertised as much reduced. Before powered grinders were common, reduced grinding time when using stones may have been an important factor for some tool users. The failure to resume production of laminated blades after the war may have been a result of much greater cost of production of laminated blades once tool steel production really got going. Brent -- Brent Beach Victoria, BC, Canada |
|||
263025 | Mark Pfeifer <markpfeifer@i...> | 2017‑08‑19 | Re: Robert Duke chisel |
Good info! I have a beater Duke that I keep on the bench, and I always wondered where the heck it came from. As long we we’re talking about laminated blades . . . . . I use a lot of wooden bench planes. Almost all of them have very very thick laminated irons. I have no trouble at all getting a good edge on a typical Stanley iron. I have no trouble at all keeping my chisels sharp. My left arm is completely bald. I don’t know what I’m doing wrong but when I sharpen those big thick laminated irons, I feel like it’s binary. I either get it perfect, or I spend 8 hours and only manage to rub 1/4” of length off the iron. I prefer to sharpen “by hand” even though I have 2 low speed grinders and a tabletop belt sander. But with these big fat irons I’ve compromised with Thomas Edison and I use the finest wheel of my 2 grinders, get it to hollow ground, then use the stones. I don’t make a point of taking the hollow out, because of course several stone sharpenings do that anyway. If the Galoot consensus is that this is just the nature of big fat irons, I will be satisfied and move on. But if I’m missing something in my sharpening technique I’d love to know . . . . . MPf. |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |